In a complex and ongoing dispute, Alabama voters have turned to the justices of the Supreme Court, encouraging them to remain involved in a disagreement concerning the state’s congressional map. Alabama’s request to the Supreme Court was to temporarily postpone lower-court rulings which suggested that a map, newly established this year, likely infringes upon the Voting Rights Act. This recent call to action brought forth by the voters revisits the unfortunate historical precedent of states utilizing seemingly neutral laws and practices to resist civil rights remedies while upholding the status quo.
This appeal follows continuous contention around Alabama’s endeavors to redraw its congressional districts per data from the 2020 census. Despite approximately 27 percent of Alabama’s populace identifying as Black, the seven-district map approved by Alabama’s Republican-dominated legislature in 2021 contained only a single majority-Black district. This contentious mapping led both federal courts in January 2022 to concur that the 2021 map likely transgressed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. While this decision was momentarily held back by the Supreme Court in February 2022, facilitating Alabama to utilize the questionable map for the November 2022 elections, the court upheld the rulings opposing the map in June.
Despite previous objections, Alabama enacted a new map in July, once again including merely one majority-Black district. The lower courts agreed with objections stating that the 2023 plan likely also contravenes the Voting Rights Act. This led to an expert being appointed to devise a new map.
On September 11, Alabama petitioned the Supreme Court once more, asking the justices to intervene. The voters have countered this request, urging the justices to dismiss the state’s appeal and uphold the lower-court rulings. An attempt to defy the Supreme Court’s decision by implementing a ‘remedy’ that cures nothing and hinders Black voters from voting for candidates of their choice in a second congressional district is not permitted, the challengers argue.
Notably, the voters dismissed Alabama’s claim that the lower courts should have backed the 2023 map because it supports other objectives – like protecting incumbents and maintaining local southern Alabama communities. They emphasized that if the court concedes to these aims, they will effectively never be able to challenge a map as the state can continuously adjust its priorities.
Moreover, the voters countered against Alabama’s assertion that Section 2 knows ‘no logical endpoint.’ They highlighted that although this argument should not be contemplated at this stage as it is a recent development, there are indeed measures in place to ensure that it does not proceed indefinitely. They noted, for instance, as residential segregation decreases it becomes increasingly challenging to establish compact majority-minority districts.
Finally, the voters warned that should the lower courts’ orders be deferred, it is ‘all but certain’ that the 2024 elections will employ ‘an unlawful, dilutive’ plan.
Read the full report at SCOTUSblog.